Google Looks To Convert Print Pubs Into E-Articles 42
bizwriter writes "A patent application by Google (GOOG), filed in August 2008 and made public last week, shows that the company is trying to automate the process of splitting printed magazines and newspapers into individual articles that it could then deliver separately. Although this could allow Google to convert stacks of periodicals into electronic archives, it potentially sends the company headlong into conflict with a famous Supreme Court ruling on media law."
"Reprinted by permission" (Score:4, Interesting)
Most magazines are glad to sell their content from back issues for money. So, if Google gets permission from the publisher, and then charges for back magazine items in the same way they have a paid-for newspaper archive search... is that really headed for the Supreme Court?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most magazines wouldn't be ok with an automated process because it wouldn't let them charge extra for some issues.
I'm not saying google intends to do this, but I doubt sports illustrated would let their swimsuit issue go for the same price as the rest.
Re:"Reprinted by permission" (Score:4, Funny)
I'm not saying google intends to do this, but I doubt sports illustrated would let their swimsuit issue go for the same price as the rest.
Yeah, but you don't really read the swimsuit edition for "the articles."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was just using an example that really stood out. Most magazines have one issue a year that really sells, because of just one article that outdoes their competitors. The SI example is recurrent every year, most other magazines aren't so regular.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
SI's Swimsuit Issue is not a run-of-the-mill issue of the magazine... and sometimes when sports issues warrant they'll even publish a normal SI on the same day. But, like special issues of Time and Consumer Reports... those don't have to even go to subscribers if they don't want them to. Easy to exclude such things, or include them if Google really wants them, in the eventual contract.
Re:"Reprinted by permission" (Score:4, Funny)
No kidding...those pictures are ... degrading to women. If it wasn't for the articles, I wouldn't pick up Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue. Are you one of those perverts that just buys it for the pictures. You and your ilk disgust me.
.
.
Whew...that was close. She's gone now, but my wife was standing over my shoulder. Those girls are hot!
Re:"Reprinted by permission" (Score:4, Insightful)
An automated conversion process has no effect on what can be charged for individual portions of the results, it just streamlines the process of getting material into a form where it can be distributed online, separated by (and, potentially, priced differently by) article, which is even more specific than particular issue.
Now, certainly, Google would probably like to get everything from everyone and pay and charge nothing for it, making money by serving targetted ads alongside the content. But that's not the only could do with the technology, and patenting the technology (even if one assumes that they intend to deploy it at all) doesn't tell you anything about how they plan to deploy it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Did you read my original post? Google has a paywall for old newspaper content, they could easily erect one for old magazine content if needed.
Re: (Score:2)
If the magazines want variable pricing, then I see no reason they couldn't negotiate that with Google.
Re: (Score:1)
Most magazines wouldn't be ok with an automated process because it wouldn't let them charge extra for some issues.
I'm not saying google intends to do this, but I doubt sports illustrated would let their swimsuit issue go for the same price as the rest.
Why would an automated process necessitate uniform pricing for everything? They could easily set it up so that if the OCR reads "Swimsuit Issue" on the cover, the "articles" are tagged differently and a different price is charged.
Re: (Score:2)
As I've said, the swimsuit issue is a rarity.
In fact, the behaviour of most media executives is that they want to set the price retroactively, based on popularity.
Re: (Score:2)
As the article says, the problem is not so much with the publishers as with the copyrights of the authors.
capability does not imply intention (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe they will, and maybe they won't. But anyone who does will have to factor Google's patent application into their economic reckoning.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
it potentially sends the company headlong into conflict with a famous Supreme Court ruling on media law.
They've already proved with the blatently illegal settlement on the book scanning deal that the law doesn't apply to them.
What is that famous ruling anyway? That sentence just calls for a link.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
it potentially sends the company headlong into conflict with a famous Supreme Court ruling on media law.
They've already proved with the blatently illegal settlement on the book scanning deal that the law doesn't apply to them.
What is that famous ruling anyway? That sentence just calls for a link.
It's right there in the article:
There’s just one legal problem: New York Times Co. , et. al. v. Jonathan Tasini et. al. [cornell.edu] Usually called the Tasini case, freelance writers sued the New York Times and other print publications for licensing individual articles to database companies without permission from the writers, who retained the copyright on the articles. One of the main turning points was that the publishers had explicit permission only to include the articles in the print publication. However, copyright law did not allow the publishers to break their publications up and make the articles accessible to readers out of the original context.
Re: (Score:1)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-201P.ZO [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There aren't as many orphan magazines as there are orphan books.
Re: (Score:2)
"Blatantly Illegal" (you are welcome for the spelling correction) is a matter for the court to decide. Courts have approved the settlement.
So what was your problem? Did they fail to ask for YOUR approval?
Which ruling? (Score:1)
it potentially sends the company headlong into conflict with a famous Supreme Court ruling on media law."
Can someone link please? I'm not a legal scholar. Which law, and how did they rule?
Re:Which ruling? (Score:5, Informative)
There’s just one legal problem: New York Times Co. , et. al. v. Jonathan Tasini et. al. [cornell.edu] Usually called the Tasini case, freelance writers sued the New York Times and other print publications for licensing individual articles to database companies without permission from the writers, who retained the copyright on the articles. One of the main turning points was that the publishers had explicit permission only to include the articles in the print publication. However, copyright law did not allow the publishers to break their publications up and make the articles accessible to readers out of the original context.
Obligatory Wikipedia link [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Wait, what's this article thing you're talking about? I thought this was Slashdot.
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you. Now, will someone please mod the parent "informative" and my GP comment "overrated?" Thanking the mods in advance.
Re:Which ruling? (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you. Now, will someone please mod the parent "informative" and my GP comment "overrated?" Thanking the mods in advance.
Understanding, thanks, salutations ... delivered on Slashdot? With cordiality? Scanning for sarcasm, hatred, malice, discontent ... clean?! Taking full claim of responsibility? Strange new feelings welling up inside me. Double checking URL ... still Slashdot! No memes? Bizarre. How to appropriately respond?
... it's been a pleasure doing business with you?"
"Uh
you're doin it wrong (Score:2)
How to appropriately respond?
"Uh ... it's been a pleasure doing business with you?"
No, no; it's like this:
A+++++ comment, would read again!
Re: (Score:2)
He just hates himself. ;)
Re: (Score:1)
New York Times Co. , et. al. v. Jonathan Tasini et. al. [cornell.edu] Usually called the Tasini case, freelance writers sued the New York Times and other print publications for licensing individual articles to database companies without permission from the writers, who retained the copyright on the articles. One of the main turning points was that the publishers had explicit permission only to include the articles in the print publication. However, copyright law did not allow the publishers to break their publications up and make the articles accessible to readers out of the original context.
I'll have half a pint (Score:1, Informative)
In the UK, Australia and NZ, "pubs" are what americans call bars.
Re: (Score:2)
We have pubs in Canada too. We also have bars. And clubs
They are different though. A pub is one of those places you go down to drink and have a good time with your friends. You usually end up buying a big platter of Appetizers, sitting chatting and getting drunk together.
A club is the opposite of a pub, in that you expect to do No sitting whatsoever. You pay a ridiculously high cover charge, have to be dressed nice, and pretty much go there to dance while drinking. There will at most be 5 tables in seperate
Leaping to conclusions (Score:5, Insightful)
Both TFA and the summary assume leap to the conclusion that GOOGLE would run afoul of a law relating to current publications without even hinting at the utterly vast archives of newspapers molding in public libraries or on microfilm that can't be accessed conveniently if at all.
Many worry about the loss of historical content, so much so that due to so much of our modern media being released only in digital form. [theregister.co.uk]
Yet there is a huge wealth of old newspapers, scientific journals, and popular press magazines that could be salvaged with this technology.
Its odd, that when envisioning futuristic civilizations we almost always expect all of their literary history being contained in computers accessible from everywhere. Yet when someone develops the tools to do just that there is a huge outcry from those that posture as defenders of IP rights.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Both TFA and the summary assume leap to the conclusion that GOOGLE would run afoul of a law relating to current publications without even hinting at the utterly vast archives of newspapers molding in public libraries or on microfilm that can't be accessed conveniently if at all.
That was pretty much exactly what I was going to say. There's a huge leap to nefarious conclusions here - this kind of technology would be awesome for getting old magazines and newspapers a huge amount of which are out of copyright
Re: (Score:2)
Its odd, that when envisioning futuristic civilizations we almost always expect all of their literary history being contained in computers accessible from everywhere. Yet when someone develops the tools to do just that there is a huge outcry from those that posture as defenders of IP rights.
There is an outcry because current IP rights don't allow for content to be "salvaged with this technology"
The solution is to go to Congress and have the law changed, not to run roughshod over the rights of others and then present a fait accompli.
I know it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission, but that isn't how our legal system works.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be prudent to actually wait till there was an actual violation of someone's IP rights before starting with the crocodile tears?
Googling getting questionable (Score:3, Informative)
The summary makes it sound like Google is trying to do yet another end run around actually paying publishers to access their content. Every single major publisher out there already has their article content in an advertisement free format. They have templates that they copy the content (and advertisements) into when it comes time to print. If Google wants the content, they can pay the publishers for it. They don't need to reverse engineer the final printing. They need to stop being cheap and pay content creators.
Re:Googling getting questionable (Score:4, Insightful)
It's only recent material for which this is true. Google appears to be interested in older material, for which the publishers generally do not have split out versions, or, for that matter, in many cases, any electronic version at all.
How will they do it? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup: long since done by Exegenix, who even did the magazine analysis, and now available as a web service from Tata Consulting in India.
One of my customers used the for-pay service to convert a massive government budget to text the day it was relased.
--dave